Skip to comments.Cantor Caves? Tweets Supprt for 'Smart' infrastructure spending.
Posted on 09/10/2011 8:20:35 AM PDT by Maelstorm
(Excerpt) Read more at twitter.com ...
Since you brought up Sarah Palin, I would point out that she supported the portion of the earlier stimulus package that dealt with infrastructure, she accepted it, and she said it would create jobs in Alaska.
So I wouldn’t use her to attack Cantor on infrastructure spending.
I’ve seen no announcement of such a plan, so unless the poster was actually a high-ranking RNC official, I wouldn’t run off assuming they are correct.
“RINO” = I disagree with the last thing he said.
Thanks for posting that link. I found it to be a very interesting and well-written article.
Again, I should read the thread before posting, you are right and said it better than I did.
.. Am I suppose to believe theyll put their name on another stimulus package of that size? With Ozero in the weakened state hes right now ?The Tea Party will bail and sit home, expecially if the spending cuts are 10 years from now. Never going to happen, IMO
Cantor is just playing around, for PR purposes, I would suspect.
Sorry, I wasn't aiming the hysterical part at you. I agree with you that the infrastructure stuff is just code for union jobs. The hysterical part was aimed at others that seem to be hyperventilating at a single Cantor tweet.
Yep unfortunately. I personally like Eric but this kind of crap is telegraphing the wrong message. It is clear to me that they are trying to avoid a reignition of the of the same thing that led up to 2010 and that speaks volumns aboid the goals of the GOP. It is clear that a majority of behind the curtain the power brokers don’t want the GOP to become continue to become the Tea Party party which is exactly what will happen if a replay of 2009-2010 occurs going into 2012. They want to manage things so that the GOP wins but not officially under the Tea Party banner.
Truthfully I still believe Cantor and others in leadership are trying to subtlely clear the way for Mitt Romney.
I don’t know for certain but the unspoken thread is fairly clear. They do not want a Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachman or even a Rick Perry. They want to re-establish the establishment.
How else do you explain the no-brainer potential to turn this minime stimulus into a big boondoggle to hang around Obama’s neck?
I hope they realize that Obama is counting on a severe economic crisis next year to allow him to trap the GOP into another big spending TARP style mess.
Why doesn’t the House pass the “American Jobs Bill” (as they would write it) since no bill as Obama speechified actually exists?
"On the whole these things that are good for the state we will appreciate those dollars coming as an addition to our economy, certainly the construction projects we are still looking forward to those because those are what actually create the jobs."Since I presume you don't think Sarah Palin endaged in "crony capitalism", you must see that infrastructure spending isn't "crony capitalism".
Nah, to many here that would be sign of capitulation and caving and being RINOs... When you get people calling Eric Cantor a RINO, you know you're way over-the-edge in terms of sanity!
Are you serious? The GOP plans to spend 1/2 trillion taxpayer $$$, $ that we don't have, to better position themselves for the 2012 election? EXACTLY what is WRONG with DC. And btw, it is a horrible strategy. The Tea Party will go 3rd Party if that's the game the GOP plans to play. That is outrageous. If the strategy you outlined is true, they really are just 2 sides of the same thieving, corrupt coin!
Oh c'mon! You don't get it yet?
The differences between the wings of the ruling class are minor. They ALL believe certain things which are false, anti-human, and destructive to the Republic and to the Constitution.
Every last one of them. You place WAY too much reliance on the "R" brand.
But change is coming. Change is inevitable. You betcha. < wink >.
Precisely. Too many conservatives have gone over the edge and become purely reactionary - which allows them to be even more manipulated. It's crazy. Sometimes spending is actually needed - repairing roads, bridges, and expanding airports seems like a good idea to me - just like replacing our military infrastructure as well.
If there's going to be any spending, then spend it on things that benefit ALL people, and build the nation and its economy - that's actual, hard infrastructure - not food stamps and subsidized housing and bailing out big union companies.
In fact, highways and airports ARE a Constitutional domain of the Federal Government - they are used for postal roads/delivery of mail, and per Article 1, Section 8, Clause 7 of the US Constitution - Congress gets to establish postal roads - roads (and I would assume ports as needed as well) for delivery of mail. That's the highways and airports.
Keep the infrastructure spending on these things - get rid of the social welfare spending that eats up 100% of the Federal Revenues and is actually unconstitutional.
The problem with infrastructue spending is that the interstate hwy system is finished and the need for new monstrous international airports is limited. Stadiums? No real need.
There is a need for maintenance but that too is limited. This is not the nineteen fifties.
"So when we hear the leaders of the American Establishment declare war on the tea partiers, we would do well to remember that such movements are deeply imbedded in our national DNA, that those Establishment types owe their own status to such a movement, that the dreams of the tea partiers are shared not only by millions of American voters, but by freedom-seeking peoples in some very unexpected places, and that it is no accident to discover that a global movement in the name of freedom coincides with a global Great Awakening, with roots in America and its unique revolutionary tradition." Michael Ledeen
Geez, let’s kick him while he’s down.
Cantor caves. Who among us is shocked? He was, is and continues to be a whiny azz country club republican.
These guys just don’t get it. Not one more penny on this stimulous nonsense. I made a $10 bet at lunch yesterday with my best friend that the Pubbies won’t give Barry another nickel for stimulous and now I’m getting worried that I’m going to lose. I never learn. LOL!
Meanwhile, Cantor will be proposing a 20% deduction from income for small businesses. Lots of negotiating to come in which Obama liberal positions will be exposed and there will be more opportunity for his base to consider him as "weak" when he again has to back down.
The infrastructure spending bill is already written and sitting in the transportation committee of the Senate. It is S.942, submitted by Patty Murray, designed to fund multi-modal infrastructure projects like the one her home state of WA, the Gateway Pacific Coal Terminal.
That’s not the interesting part though, the company that is building this terminal is SSA, the same company of longshoremen who have recently been in the news for the union violence in Longview,WA.
Oh, and it gets better. Patty Murray’s husband is a lifetime employee of SSA, which is fully owned by CARRIX, and Goldman Sachs is the majority stake holder in CARRIX.
Thank you for the clarification, but putting some of that money in the hands of certain states is not necessarily a good thing, either.
As I posted previously, the infrastructure spending bill is already written and is sitting in committee in the Senate. It was submitted by Patty Murray, Dick Durbin and Susan Collins. It is designed to fund Gateway projects around the country, many of which are not popular with local residents, and the states who have been requesting the money are being denied funds for punitive reasons. Those states are South Carolina and Wisconsin. Big surprise, considering who submitted the bill.
South Carolina wants dredging of their port and the bill excludes dredging. Wisconsin was dropped from the funding by Ray LaHood.
The infrastructure and transportation bill doesn’t really create any “family wage”jobs anyway. It pays for permitting, environmental studies, land purchase and even interest on the start up money, but no real jobs. It’s just more of the same old, same old that we have had from the Obama administration since day one.
If he gives the money to the states for the projects that the people don’t want, what good is that?
Any and all congresscritters who openly say they want to send Feral dollars (that were ripped out of people’s paychecks) back to States are NOT PART OF THE SOLUTION, THEY’RE PART OF THE PROBLEM.
Those who want infrastructure built - if it is so NEEDED in the their State - then it should be WORTHWHILE for THAT STATE to FLOAT BONDS to PAY FOR THE STINKIN’ PROJECT.
Why should my State of New Jersey ask people from MINNESOTA, OR NEW MEXICO, OR TEXAS - TO BUILD IMPROVEMENTS TO THE AIRPORTS IN NEW JERSEY - OR NJ BRIDGES ?????
If NJ roads and bridges are falling apart - NJ needs to maintain them - or it will see it’s commerce suffer.
If Texas maintains it’s roads better and attracts more workers and businesses to their State - then I guess NJ better gets it’s rear in gear if it wants to compete.
I don’t like public stadiums. I also don’t like public financing of private stadiums, although it’s better than public stadiums. Then there is tax breaks to someone to bring a team to a state — that’s like giving tax breaks to any company, so they have to be weighed on a case by case basis.
When I speak of “good infrastructure” spending, I am talking about items which need to be either built or repaired anyway, that we’d normally wait until we had the money for, but which if we spend the money now, we won’t have to spend it later.
So for example, if there is a bridge that has to be replaced in the next 5 years, starting the work now rather than waiting 3 years could stimulate the economy, and we’ll get the money back when we DON’T have to do the work 3 years from now. The hope being that 3 years from now we’ll be in a recovery and won’t need the government work.
Adding lanes to overcrowded roads, or building new miles of highway where needed, are both valid federal tasks, and contribute both to extra labor, and to economic growth because people who spend less time on the roads spend more time being productive.
Fixing existing government buildings that are falling apart, or building a new facility in a better location could also be “good” — like moving an agency from an expensive lease in Arlington to an owned building out in a cheap county in Maryland or Virginia — not only do we get a boost from building, we save money on the lease, and then we get cars off of crowded highways.
The infrastructure projects have to be “smartly” chosen. I don’t trust Obama to do this — he’ll build things with forced union labor in places to pay his political donors. Unfortunately, the “no earmarks” push will make it hard for the republicans to properly target infrastructure spending, since that is what “earmarks” are — spending targetted to the specific projects the legislature believes are important.
This is why INhofe was opposed to the earmark legislation. He knew SOMEONE was going to choose what projects were built, and felt it was better for the congress to do that than let Obama do it.
Because a lot of those airports and highways and bridges are Federal assets - they're owned and governed by the Federal Goverment. At least out past the original 13 colonies (see the US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, clause 17).
Why should a State get stuck repairing and maintaining a Federal road? Why should they have to pick up the bill for a Federal asset? Rather, the Feds should spend their money maintaining their own properties and assets - and stop trying to buy people with giveaways and freebies.
I thought we were out of money and had to hack social security! Goes to show what I have always said. These GOP socialist idiots will cut Social Security to please wall street and then turn around and spend even more money on every other whim that passes by.
They are incompetent liars.
I read the long article that was referenced to by someone on here. It is spot on! Folks, it is drawing near that we have to ditch the GOP and start a Constitutional Party!
The GOP ruling class needs to be forced to form its own third party of "moderates."
The GOP belongs to Sarah Palin now. The "moderates" just haven't figured it out yet.
So, of the 431 Federal highway miles in NJ, the Federal Government shouldn’t pay to maintain any of them?
That’s the thing - I’m OK with the Government spending on maintenance of critical infrastructure like roads and airports. If there’s too much spending, then cut something else - not the road, bridge, and airport maintenance of its own assets.
Consider Denver International Airport. Wound up costing just under $5 billion. That size project could EASILY be funded with private capital; I just looked very quickly, it looked like a variety of participants. But at $5 billion, that’s not too big a project for private sector capital.
And voila, the financial reports are here (click on Financial Reports, Yes I understand, then dowload the pdf at Annual 2010:
The thing is making money.
Big projects do not have to be funded by the Feral government because they are too big. If they make sense financially, they can be built and operated by the private sector. No government cost, no government risk. Private sector investment, private sector takes the risk instead.
The private sector has simply been trained to always look for free giveaway Feral money.
Does the Federal government have a role in developing rules for air transportation, allocating radio frequencies, air traffic control, etc., certainly. Money from an already insolvent Feral government that’s half borrowed - that’s just an economic drag on everyone.
The myth is that things that “too big” for the private sector need to be funded by government, but in truth the private sector has, in total, more capital than the government. It just allocates it much more wisely than the government. If you have a big project that’s not really needed, or some new technology that’s not economically viable - you get some government stooges to make up some heroic story and raid the public treasury to fund your project. If it fails, it was a “government” project - so you don’t have to pay them back !
I’m say they constitute about 1% of NJ road mileage.
They also constitute about 1% of all Federal road mileage.
But the Feral government is funding maybe HALF of NJ’s transportation budget. About a billion dollars, perhaps closer to $2 billion.
Seems like too much Federal money going to NJ for 431 out of 38,000 miles of road...
If you look through the projects in the one link I had - there are all sorts of bogus projects in the NJDOT plan. This is slush money pure and simple.
What I’m saying is easy: NJ should simply take over the 431 miles - maintain it just like the do the other 38,000 miles of their own roads. And then take NO money from the Feds. The Feral government would save over $1 billion EVERY YEAR from here on out !
If that was forced on NJ by Congress NJ would just... get along. We’d survive. We’d just have to decide how much garbage we were going to cut out of our Transportation fantasyland spending. I bet we’d cut. Trubble is, the mobsters - sorry, ex-mobsters - would NOT want to have their juicy contracts cut. Ouch.
Here’s an interesting link...
According to the article (I’d have to look it up)... my WONDERFUL Congressman Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ) recently proposed a bill to allow states to opt out of Federal funding !!!!!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.